An Advisory Committee (AC) is a particular type of crisis governance device that provides evidence to inform government decision-making. This article explores AC architecture and how it may determine a government’s response capacity during the COVID-19 crisis by politicization settings (i.e. meritocratic vs highly politicized/patronaged).
This study compares two cases with contrasting politicization archetypes: Ireland as meritocratic and Slovakia as patronaged. A pattern-matching approach is applied in the case study design.
The findings illustrate how different politicization settings impacted COVID-19 crisis governance. The Irish case demonstrated hierarchical and traceable decision-making and AC membership was composed of bureaucrats and independent experts focused on evidence production. The politicized Slovak case was characterized by centralization around the prime minister, informal governance structures, circularity in decision-making procedures and unclear accountability.
The study provides conceptual insights that may be deployed to interpret the impact of politicization in diverse settings.
The existing organizational capacity determines government response during a crisis and strengthening AC architecture is essential. Explicit and documented governance design is critical to accountability, transparency and societal trust.
The design architecture of ACs can empower evidence production and contribute to effective governance in a meritocratic setting. In contrast, a highly politicized setting may result in promoting patronage characteristics.
This article contributes to emerging research on the system level arguing that the character of the organization of expertise conditions adoption of expert ideas. It proposes a framework for comparative analysis.
